Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New time control strategy #320

Merged
merged 17 commits into from
Dec 1, 2016
Merged

New time control strategy #320

merged 17 commits into from
Dec 1, 2016

Conversation

ujh
Copy link
Owner

@ujh ujh commented Nov 18, 2016

Let's try the time control strategy STOP from the paper Time Management for Monte Carlo Tree Search. As a first step I think I'll need to optimize f_earlystop and p_earlystop. Without the current values the bot behaves really weirdly and doesn't search nearly long enough.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 92.753% when pulling ccd8ded on new-time-control into 84c17b4 on master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 92.75% when pulling cffa8c8 on new-time-control into 84c17b4 on master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.007%) to 92.726% when pulling 13e876c on new-time-control into 84c17b4 on master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 92.751% when pulling 5d8eadf on new-time-control into 84c17b4 on master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 92.751% when pulling 94ff0f8 on new-time-control into 84c17b4 on master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 92.751% when pulling 3eeeabf on new-time-control into d1ca724 on master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 92.751% when pulling 8a87790 on new-time-control into d1ca724 on master.

@ujh ujh merged commit 2eee47c into master Dec 1, 2016
@ujh ujh deleted the new-time-control branch December 1, 2016 16:04
@iopq
Copy link
Collaborator

iopq commented Dec 1, 2016

any improvements in strength?

@ujh
Copy link
Owner Author

ujh commented Dec 2, 2016

Unfortunately not. I still kept it though as it didn't get worse and I think it's easier to understand/less of a hack. Maybe I can even get rid of the f_earlystop and p_earlystop variables, but I'll have to test that separately.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants